Vaccination

[Dame Aussie]

Well you got the monster bit right.

In regards to canine cough, unless I kennel my dogs I won't be giving it to them. It's not commonly fatal so I don't think it's necessary to vaccinate against it.

I don't vaccinate for kennel cough, I dont see the point, it's like trying to vaccinate for the common cold! There are too many strains.

It's disappointing that vets aren't accepting the recommendations.

[OSoSwift]

Ironically, since we've been running this place and changed the protocol to the 3 yearly one, we've been the busiest the place has ever been! I think people love the fact that clearly the vet here isn't money focused and can see that in the way he runs his business, so are more likely to come up for even the little things now.

Trust me if I had the ability to choose I would go to a vet that happily offered this service.

I want the best for my dog, so weant to vaccinate less, makes it so hard when you have to fight every step of the way!

[Erny]

Trust me if I had the ability to choose I would go to a vet that happily offered this service. I want the best for my dog, so weant to vaccinate less, makes it so hard when you have to fight every step of the way!

If it is something you HAVE to have the Vet sign off on (such as for rescue dogs ready for rehoming; going to kennels; and such like) then I'd understand. But what "fight" do you have to put up with in the absence of these things?

My local GP Vet knows my stance on over-vaccination. He might not agree with it (for whatever his own reasons) but he knows he has no choice in the matter. I've just rung them and made an appointment for a general check up (need a couple of other things looked at as well, just for his opinion) given that I don't go for the regular vaccination consults.

I guess my question is, do you HAVE to have the Vet sign off on the vaccination for some reason or other, or are you feeling the 'pressure' from their disapproval that makes you feel uncomfortable?

I do agree though that it is a shame we cop the burden of their disapproval and the discomfort that can bring, when all we are doing is what we believe is for our dogs' good health. And it seems so wrong they should impose that pressure on us, especially when they are going against even what the AVA is recommending.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Erny

[OSoSwift]

That would be good but my vet will not sign off on a i year vacc for 3 years and if I don't have a yearly or triennel vacc I cannot go to dog training or take my adult dogs along when we have Puppy pre school

From my post above Erny.

If it was not for these things I would just do the yearly vacc every 3 years. My adult dogs come along to Puppy pre-school every week and play with any puppies that are a little full on and pushy, through their body language and gentle disipline they quickly have puppies displaying respect and interacting nicely. I cannot go to dog Club without a signed off vaccination certificate. My once a fortnight at dog training is the ONLY time I have away from my kids that is just for me. I won't give it up in a hurry!

[Erny]

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts (and I know that annoys some people, but hey ..... I was running out of time today :D ).

Ok - I getcha. Pity your Club won't look at other ways, such as accepting Titre Tests.

[OSoSwift]

No worries Erny - they have never even heard of titre tests and all vaccinate yearly.

I just keeping trying to educate - I do get there eventually, just sometimes takes a while.

Dog training is my sanity time, so I will endeavour to educate as well.

[Chocolatelover]

Titres are far more likely to say you need a vaccination when you don't than to say you're safe when you're in danger. So there's nothing wrong with a club accepting titres. I also think they may be useful for pups between 14 weeks and 14 months when a parvo epidemic is going on, especially for breeds that are notoriously sensitive to parvo. My vets tell me that parvo mortality is unacceptably high in this age group because the puppy vaccines occasionally don't take. I've never got a clear answer as to why . . . mostly shrugged shoulders + "maternal antibodies".

p.s. I'm not an expert on this, but just have a science background and have done a bit of reading and consulted a few vets.

Hey Sandgrubber - hope this helps

My breeder did a six week C3 and then vet did a 12 week C5 and then told me that was it. If I had of known I would have taken him in later for the C5 at 16 weeks. From what I can understand, if a pup is to only ever receive one vaccination eg rescue dogs then it should be given at sixteen or greater weeks as this is when there the greatest chance of responding to the vaccination. For this reason I gave him another at 16.5 weeks. Plus I had just read Rexiam's thread on loosing her Molly and Chuzzy (both who had a second at 12 weeks from memory) and this did sway my decision as well :D

At the twelve week vaccination it is possible for the pup to still have maternal antibodies. These antibodies were passed through the mothers milks to the pup and they hang around for a bit. So when the antigen (parvo virus which is modified or dead, not sure which in the case of parvo) is injected into the pup the maternal antibodies bind to it and it is removed from circulation. For this reason the pup's own immune system is never exposed and no memory cells will be made (the secondary response which is the point of vaccination). So technically, the pup is not vaccinated. By 16 weeks it is highly likely that the maternal antibody will have been removed from the pups system and the vaccination will cause them to seroconvert, that is - to make it's own antibodies and memory cells for later re-exposure.

So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!! I too am not sure why we vaccinate our dogs more than our children!! Have never been able to find the anwer to this, although am still looking

Just a thought, I like reading my science books too

Edited March 27, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[Staranais]

So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!!

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series.

But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say).

Edited March 27, 2010 by Staranais

[Chocolatelover]

So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!!

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series.

But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say).

But just because a titre test shows there are no demonstratable antibodies lurking around does not mean the animal is not immune. The memory cells are responsible for the amnamnestic response which is what would protect the animal if it is resensitised. Proving that an animal seroconverts ensures you have stimulated a response and the animal will then have memory cells for this atigen. Having no antibodies present in a titre test three year on does not mean that the animal does not have immunity.

[Staranais]

So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!!

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series.

But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say).

But just because a titre test shows there are no demonstratable antibodies lurking around does not mean the animal is not immune. The memory cells are responsible for the amnamnestic response which is what would protect the animal if it is resensitised. Proving that an animal seroconverts ensures you have stimulated a response and the animal will then have memory cells for this atigen. Having no antibodies present in a titre test three year on does not mean that the animal does not have immunity.

I think you misunderstand me. Of course an animal may still be immune to a disease without showing a current antibody titre. However, I'm not talking about serology tests. I'm talking about animals catching a disease that they have previously been protected against.

Since some animals do not remain immune to some viruses even after natural infection (e.g, pigs & foot and mouth disease, cattle & papular stomatitis, sheep & contagious pustular dermatitis), it's not really surprising that every viral vaccine doesn't cause permanent immunity either.

Luckily, the 3 canine core vaccines seem to protect the vast majority of dogs for at least several years. However, there's no cut and dry rule that immunity from vaccination always lasts forever.

[Chocolatelover]

So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!!

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series.

But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say).

But just because a titre test shows there are no demonstratable antibodies lurking around does not mean the animal is not immune. The memory cells are responsible for the amnamnestic response which is what would protect the animal if it is resensitised. Proving that an animal seroconverts ensures you have stimulated a response and the animal will then have memory cells for this atigen. Having no antibodies present in a titre test three year on does not mean that the animal does not have immunity.

I think you misunderstand me. Of course an animal may still be immune to a disease without showing a current antibody titre. However, I'm not talking about serology tests. I'm talking about animals catching a disease that they have previously been protected against.

Since some animals do not remain immune to some viruses even after natural infection (e.g, pigs & foot and mouth disease, cattle & papular stomatitis, sheep & contagious pustular dermatitis), it's not really surprising that every viral vaccine doesn't cause permanent immunity either.

Luckily, the 3 canine core vaccines seem to protect the vast majority of dogs for at least several years. However, there's no cut and dry rule that immunity from vaccination always lasts forever.

Yes but the second time an animal gets an infection it is usually less severe - and this is due to the amnamnestic response. Same with vaccination - children who are vaccinated against chicken pox may very well still get the disease but more often than not it is not as severe as in children who are not vaccinated. There is never ever a 100% chance that an animal will not contract a disease for which they have been vaccinated.

Oh, and I do the three yearly vaccination for my dogs (recommended by my vet). I am not against vaccination at all - I would rather give an extra vaccination than risk anything. It's just that I don't think titre testing is the be all and end all and I have seen many examples of this with human Hep B titre testing.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[Staranais]

Yes but the second time an animal gets an infection it is usually less severe - and this is due to the amnamnestic response. Same with vaccination - children who are vaccinated against chicken pox may very well still get the disease but more often than not it is not as severe as in children who are not vaccinated.

I can't comment on chicken pox, since I don't know much at all about human medicine. Was just commenting on your question about why re-vaccination is ever necessary once an animal has been proven to seroconvert once.

I have no idea why the body can produce a life long immunity against some disease causing agents, and loses immunity against others - I don't think anyone does know - but I'll be fascinated to learn what the mechanism is when they find out!

[stormie]

Just because they seroconvert I don't think it necessarily guarantees life long immunity. Take the KC vaccines for instance - they are saying they probably only give approx 10months immunity.

[sandgrubber]

So I guess like you say Sandgrubber, if a pup was titred after it's last vaccination to make sure it had seroconverted that would be the best way to make sure that the vaccination was effective and maybe titres could be done from their rather than revaccinating?????? Although I would think that once the animal had been proven to seroconvert then that would be it!!!

Lots of good evidence points towards the 3 canine core modified live vaccines producing at least several years of protection, possibly life long protection, in most animals after the initial puppy series.

But not all vaccinations cause lasting protection for an animal, even if the animal does seroconvert. Some do, some don't. It's not an unbreakable rule that seroconversion after a vaccination = lifelong protection. I could name several production animal vaccinations off the top of my head where the body demonstrably doesn't retain protective immunity indefinitely (despite what the titre test may originally say).

But just because a titre test shows there are no demonstratable antibodies lurking around does not mean the animal is not immune. The memory cells are responsible for the amnamnestic response which is what would protect the animal if it is resensitised. Proving that an animal seroconverts ensures you have stimulated a response and the animal will then have memory cells for this atigen. Having no antibodies present in a titre test three year on does not mean that the animal does not have immunity.

Depends on when it was last vaccinated: if you did a titre test, say, at 18 weeks when the pup got its last jab at 12 weeks, I'd expect a good titre reading. If the reading was low, there would be reason to go for a third puppy jab.

Another vaccination-related thread (on the Breeders Community Forum) suggests that a bitch needs to have active antibodies to be able to produce milk that protects pups from disease . . . so a different vaccination regime, or titre testing, may be appropriate for brood bitches.

Edited March 28, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Chocolatelover]

Just because they seroconvert I don't think it necessarily guarantees life long immunity. Take the KC vaccines for instance - they are saying they probably only give approx 10months immunity.

My beagle has always been vaccinated against kennel cough yearly but has caught it twice - once from neighbours dog and once from a dog at the dog park (we think). Although from memory "kennel cough" is caused by a bacteria primarily (the Bordatella part of the vaccination) BUT can also be caused by viruses. The parainfluenza part (C4) protects against one type of viral kennel cough but there are other viruses that can cause it.

Trouble with titre testing too is that it depends on the method by which it is done in the laboratory. My job involves doing human antibody titres and two different people doing them can get very different results!!! I don't like tests that involve human error when it comes to my dogs health

As for the maternal antibodies - I thought that the bubs were protected because Mum would be exposed to what babies are, levels in Mum would rise immediately and be passed onto babies. Therefore passive immunity from maternal milk is provided only if Mum has appropriate levels in her system. Hence, the vaccination at six weeks - this is in case there were not appropriate levels in the mothers milk. If there were, pup will probably not seroconvert but will be protected anyway. If not, hopefully pup will mount a response even though the immune system is not fully developed.

By 16 weeks the thought is that the immune system is better developed and the absence of maternal antibodies will ensure that a very high percentage of dogs will seroconvert. Of course, some will never seroconvert (non-responders) as for humans also.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[Chocolatelover]

Oh and I found this pretty astounding...... when I was talking to my vet about my preference for a 16+ week vaccination she said I really didn't need to as the company was so confident of the schedule and the effectiveness of the vaccine that they were covering the costs of any dog that contracted canine parvovirus after being vaccinated!!!!!!!!